Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation v. Hall, Kistler & Company, LLP
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|November 13, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART & DENYING IN PART dft's 72 MOTION in Limine to Exclude any Evidence of Hall Kistler's PCAOB Inspection Reports and Violations Contained Within; granted as the PCAOB reports relating to t he 2006 & 2010 inspections are excluded; denied as the PCAOB report relating to the 2012 inspection is admissible; (2) GRANTING IN PART & DENING IN PART dft's 73 MOTION in Limine to Limit Evidence of Gold Mine Asset Retirement Obligation Te stimony; granting as no evidence from a previously unnamed, unidentified party may be introduced; denied as Jim Tencza may be permitted to testify on the gold mine asset retirement obligation; (3) GRANTED IN PART & DENIED IN PART dft's 75 MOT ION in Limine to Preclude the Use of Magnum Hunter's ARO as Evidence of the Correct Value of NGAS' ARO; granting as Evans may not testify as to the exact amount less that Magnum Hunter would have paid for NGAS had the financial statements b een accurate or that Magnum Hunter would not have purchased NGAS; denied as Evans may testify that Magnum Hunter would have paid less for NGAS; (4) DENIED dft's 74 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Gary Evans' Speculative Damages Testimony. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 11/13/13.(KJR)cc: COR
|August 1, 2013
OPINION & ORDER: The Court ORDERS that 54 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 8/1/2013. (SCD)cc: COR
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?